What We Have... & What We Will No Longer Be Denied

(So we're still waiting for the federal district court to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban. Once that happens, marriage equality will finally be a reality here in Nevada. However that day may come sooner than originally thought, as Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt ordered a prompt issuance demanding the lower court issue that injunction ASAP. And Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2:00 PM today!

Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.

This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)



Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".



OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.

.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).

First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.

Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.

Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.


I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.

One Word

Wow. This is just what I needed. There's nothing quite like a good Thursday morning tear jerker. And today, the Las Vegas Sun delivered the goods.

Sun reporter Jackie Valley penned an article on the Flamer-Fletcher family. They're like so many other families in Southern Nevada... Except that they must endure additional discrimination. Why? Read below.

They live in a spacious Summerlin home that boasts four bedrooms, a three-car garage, an outdoor pool and a sizable patch of grass in the backyard. The environment screams family atmosphere, and it is.

[Greg] Flamer and [Fletcher] Whitwell, a gay couple, consider themselves and their adopted daughter a family like anyone else in the gated neighborhood. They love each other and spend their nonworking hours as a family unit. They take Hudson to swimming lessons and gymnastics classes. They go out for an occasional brunch or dinner. They travel to see relatives.

“I feel like we’re a very normal family and treated as such,” Flamer, 40, said.

But the road to becoming a family was a difficult one because of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage, which added extra steps throughout the adoption process, they said. Flamer and Whitwell are one of eight couples that filed suit in April 2012 to overturn Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The couple had to spend $60,000 and wait through several months worth of court hearings just to adopt their daughter, Hudson. They had to file for single-parent adoption in Oklahoma, then jump through additional legal hoops to bring Hudson to Nevada. Fortunately for this family, they had the resources to endure this incredibly arduous process. But for many other LGBTQ families in Nevada and elsewhere in the nation, they simply don't have the time and/or money to endure the intense process of protecting themselves and each other legally.

This is why Greg Flamer and Fletcher Whitwell decided to become co-plaintiffs in the historic Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit now pending in federal court. While trial court wasn't kind to them, the case is now pending in the friendlier Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. And regardless of the outcome there, the case will likely then head to the US Supreme Court. And of course, the outcome of this case may be decided even sooner depending on the outcome of the Prop 8 and DOMA cases now pending in the US Supreme Court.

Yet while we're all waiting to see how the marriage law suits ultimately shake out, the Nevada Legislature has not. Rather, Nevada's LGBTQ families SJR 13 has been moving in Carson City this session. It still must pass the full Assembly in the next 11 days, then it must pass both houses of the Legislature again in 2015 before going to the voters for final approval in 2016. It's a long process, but ultimately it secures full marriage equality regardless of what happens in court in the coming months and years.

Still, I can understand how difficult it truly is for families like the Flamer-Whitwell household to have to wait on pins and needles for seemingly endless months for legislatures to debate bills, initiatives to go before voters, and cases to go before judges. But alas, such is life for Nevada's LGBTQ families today. Just don't try to explain this to Bush Administration Defense Scretary Donald Rumsfeld. He's caught the vapors over... Well, you just have to see his bullshit explanation for yourself.



I guess Mr. Rumsfeld has never met the Flamer-Whitwell family, Zaki family, and/or any other loving LGBTQ family. Below is more from today's heart wrenching Sun story.

“We have a lot of friends who are parents, straight and gay,” Flamer said. “I think we’re doing a pretty good job. She’s definitely well provided for and loved.”

Flamer and Whitwell would like to adopt again to give Hudson a sibling, but the obstacles associated with their classification as an “unmarried” couple make them uneasy.

But their desire to be married goes beyond procedures and benefits, they said. It’s symbolic of their love for each other and maybe even a little old-fashioned: They want to raise their daughter and any future children in a married household.

“We’ve flown to every corner of the country going to all our friends’ weddings,” Flamer said. “We’ve seen how wonderful it is for the whole family. That would be nice.”

Rumsfeld and other 21st Century Know Nothings claim "morality" as an excuse to deny equality to millions of loving American families. They just don't seem to notice the disgusting immorality of breaking families apart because of others' bigotry. While Nevada hasn't been as challenging of a landscape lately, families here are still denied over 1,100 legal rights and the most basic recognition of a loving, committed relationship.

It may just be one word, but it's one word that can wield so much power over so many families. It's one word that can break families apart or keep them together. It's one word that shouldn't be denied to millions of loving families just because of who they are.

How Obama Admin's Prop 8 Brief Can Expedite Marriage Equality's Arrival in Nevada

Yesterday, we discussed the surprising amicus brief in favor of marriage equality (and specifically the overturning of California's Prop 8 marriage ban) from a group of over 100 Republicans. Today, we might as well talk about what President Obama submitted to The US Supreme Court yesterday. But first, I'll let SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe explain what's in there. Believe it or not, there's a prominent Nevada angle to this story!

In the brief that it filed [last night], the federal government urged the Court to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but it did not go as far as supporters of same-sex marriage would have liked and argue that all same-sex couples, throughout the United States, should necessarily have the right to marry. That question, it told the Court, could be decided later. Instead, it wrote, when a state such as California allows committed same-sex couples to have virtually all of the rights and benefits of marriage through laws allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, but doesn’t allow those couples to get married, it is treating the same-sex couples differently because of their sexual orientation. Because that different treatment, the government explains, makes no sense, it violates the Constitution’s requirement that everyone will be treated equally. Moreover, the government observed, “California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8” —that is, promoting the conception and rearing of children.

If the Court were to agree with the federal government, that would be enough to decide the case in the challengers’ favor and rule that Proposition 8 cannot stand. The Court would not need to decide (as the trial court did in the case) whether there is a broad constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married. And its ruling wouldn’t have any immediate effect beyond the eight states – in addition to California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii, and Illinois – that currently have such civil unions and domestic partnerships. However, the Court’s reasoning might then lay the groundwork for it to strike down other states’ laws banning same-sex marriage, even when the states do not offer a civil union for same-sex couples. But that might take a while, by which point the country and the Court might be more ready to do so – which may well have been the Obama administration’s goal all along.

While The White House's amicus brief wasn't as broad as some equality activists were hoping for, it's still quite significant. Here's what the President said himself on the matter today.



And here's Steve Benen decoding the significance of yesterday's amicus brief.

[... T]he key principle to keep in mind is that of "heightened scrutiny." For proponents of marriage equality, including the White House, the argument is that measures banning same-sex marriage must be subjected to a higher level of legal scrutiny because they deliberately single out a specific group of people for unequal treatment.

In practice, this means it's incumbent on opponents of marriage equality to defend measures like Prop 8 by explaining how and why these laws "substantial related to an important governmental objective." And for the right, that's awfully difficult -- why in the world would the government need to stop two consenting adults who fall in love and want to get married from doing so? -- and leads to easily mocked arguments such as the one over "unplanned and unintended offspring" that I made fun of in late January.

The Obama administration's argument, in other words, is not only sound, it opens the door to sweeping national change. Here's hoping a high court majority finds it persuasive.

So while the administration's brief doesn't demand marriage equality nationwide immediately, it essentially sets up a legal chain reaction. If the high court agrees, then the legal burden going forward will be on opponents of marriage equality to try to defend discrimination. And since "The Supremes" will have already ruled in favor of marriage equality this year, it will have a handy dandy precedent (in favor of equality) for future marriage cases.

This is actually better than the very narrow Ninth Circuit ruling last year. In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tailored its ruling to just California and cited Romer v. Evans as precedent. That was the 1995 US Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Colorado's ban on non-discrimination ordinances because it unfairly attacked the civil rights that LGBTQ people already had. If the Court takes this route, a Prop 8 overturn will only apply to California for now... Though even that still sets up a favorable precedent for Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval, along with other future marriage suits.

What The White House is arguing for is much broader than the Ninth Circuit ruling. And if agreed to by The Supreme Court, it's one that will be experienced here in Nevada quite soon. Here's Towleroad's Ari Ezra Waldman with a clear explanation.

President Obama takes on eight states --California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island -- whose policies can be described as "everything but marriage." These states give gay couples all the trappings of marriage, the right to adopt as couples, and all the protections a gay person could want other than the word "marriage." It is for this reason that bans on marriage make no sense in California and, by implication, in these seven other states. This compromise allows the President to make a forceful argument in favor of the freedom to marry, but still leave some wiggle room for the rest of the states.

There is reason to believe that this makes strategic sense.

First, the President knows that Justice Kennedy is the likely swing vote in this case and Justice Kennedy is a cautious, conservative jurist. He has a history of respecting states' rights above all else and often rejects sweeping policies that reek of overreach. Incremental change, if any change at all, seems to be his mantra, as Professor Kenji Yoshino has argued many times before. The compromise position may be aimed at Justice Kennedy's cautious nature, giving him room to support gay rights without undermining the driving force of his judicial career. [...]

[In addition], it gives the Supreme Court a way out of a nationwide right to marry other than simply dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds while still supporting the freedom to marry. Many legal experts are concerned that the Supreme Court may not be ready to find a sweeping right to marry that upends so many state constitutional provisions. Making a pro-gay marriage decision akin to the President's middle ground allows the Court to make a strong statement about freedom while still allowing the popular consensus to keep developing further and further in favor of the freedom to marry. A decision along the lines of the President's argument would nudge the already favorable popular view of same-sex marriage even further, thus giving the debate time to work itself out without a Roe v. Wade-type premature intervention.

Even if the President's middle ground may disappoint some vocal activists, the significance of his brief cannot be overstated. Yesterday marked the first time that a presidential administration has stated that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. His brief will be read and taken to heart. Through this brief, President Obama -- the first "gay" President -- has solidified a legacy of compassion and progressivism that surpasses Lyndon Johnson's and Franklin Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's. His brief in Hollingsworth will be remembered as a watershed, a moment after which the freedom to marry seemed inevitable.

If The Supreme Court agrees with this Obama Administration amicus brief, then we will see marriage equality here in Nevada this year. After all, this argument meshes quite well with Lambda Legal's argument in Sevcik. SB 283 is supposed to provide legal equality to gay & lesbian couples, yet Question 2 keeps them in a separate & unequal status because they can't actually have the same marriage rights as straight couples. If the high court takes this route, then Nevada's Question 2 (along with marriage bans in other states that have civil unions & DP's) must fall along with California's Prop 8. And this enables the Court to issue a fairly broad ruling in favor of marriage equality and expanded LGBTQ civil rights without risking the backlash of a "blanket" nationwide order for immediate marriage equality (for all 50 states). Still, this leaves the door open for just that kind of outcome in the not-too-distant future.

So there's plenty at stake for Nevada's LGBTQ families at The Supreme Court this spring. President Obama may ultimately expedite Nevada's evolution to full marriage equality. We'll have to wait and see if the high court green lights this.

So Nevada Gets a Marriage Equality Law Suit... What's Next?

Last night, the lead plaintiffs in the case that's destined to shake up Nevada's marriage law went to Ralston to make their case.

(Start at 9:00.)



Yet while we see a new round of media buzz on this issue, let's not forget that there's an actual case to be tried in court. As we touched on yesterday, how the federal courts taking up this case interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be key. And while there are similarities to the Prop 8 case in California, there's one key difference that Prop 8 Trial Tracker noted yesterday.

Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.

Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”

Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.

In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”

So the Sevcik case here in Nevada will come down to whether domestic partnership actually provides "equal protection under the law", and if we can ever have true equal protection as long as the Question 2 marriage ban remains on the books. Unlike AFER's argument for a broad, nationwide fundamental right to marry that's being made in the Perry case in California, Lambda Legal is making a narrower argument based on the inequality present in Nevada family law and how that can not make federal Constitutional muster. It looks like Lambda Legal is confident that even if some federal judges are hesitant to use one stroke to knock down all the state marriage bans at once, they have to closely examine situations like ours and realize that we're experiencing clear and illegal discrimination.

So where will we go from here? For now, this will be in courtroom of Senior Judge Roger Hunt. And regardless of how Hunt decides, this will likely head next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, The Ninth is the same court that issued a narrow ruling in the Perry case back in February, a narrow ruling centered on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And funny enough, the Sevcik case will be argued on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Coincidence?

And like the California case, don't expect any immediate resolution. This may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket, but perhaps not for another 3-5 years. So buckle up and get ready for a long and bumpy and fascinating and trailblazing ride.

Another Marriage Equality Law Suit Starts... IN NEVADA??!!

Yes, you read me right. And this time, Lambda Legal is fully on board. In fact, Lambda Legal is filing the suit!

The lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, marks the first time that Lambda Legal has sought equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in federal court, although a staff attorney with the group, Tara Borelli, notes that another case filed by Lambda Legal in state court in New Jersey includes federal claims as well.

According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the lead plaintiffs in the new lawsuit -- Beverly Sevcik, 73, and Mary Baranovich, 76, of Carson City, Nevada -- have been together for more than 40 years. As the complaint notes, "When Beverly and Mary committed their lives to each other on October 2, 1971 and bought rings to signify their relationship, they were careful not to purchase matching rings for fear of having their relationship discovered."

The couple, nonetheless, went on to raise three children and have four grandchildren, despite the constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2000 and 2002 limiting marriage in the state's constitution to "a male and a female person." Same-sex couples have been able to receive many of the same benefits and privileges of marriage but not the status itself, however, since the legislature passed comprehensive domestic partnership benefits over the veto of then-Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) in 2009.

As Chris Geidner notes in his (DC) Metro Weekly piece, just three years ago Lambda Legal, along with almost all other national LGBTQ equality organizations, was initially hesitant to join Chad Griffin and his (then) new organization, American Foundation for Equal Rights, in their fight against California's Proposition 8 marriage equality ban in federal court. Since no federal court had ever recognized a Federal Constitutional right to marriage equality before (and many legal eagles doubted any conservative judge would do so now), they saw the move as incredibly risky. But as we've seen in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, it turns out that the risk comes with great rewards. Of course, we still have to see what the US Supreme Court does with the Prop 8 case, but at least we're now talking about a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality as a real possibility!

And as we had discussed in February, Nevada will be ripe for the picking next if the Perry case in California ultimately succeeds. Now, Lambda Legal is interested in actually putting my theory to the test. But hey, if "The Supremes" overturn Prop 8 in California on any kind of 14th Amendment or 1st Amendment grounds, regardless of how narrow they try to tailor it, they nonetheless affirm a groundbreaking precedent that will compel them to do the same to Nevada's Question 2 marriage ban, which is just as discriminatory and violates the principle of equal protection under the law just as much.

Despite what some will claim is just an argument over "words" and "lifestyles", Nevada's marriage ban has caused real damage.

Among the plaintiffs are couples who tried to get married in Nevada, but were denied because of their same-sex status; as well as couples who were married in other states but say they’ve faced discrimination since moving to Nevada.

For instance, the suit says, couple Fletcher Whitwell, 37, and Greg Flamer, 39, live in Las Vegas and last year adopted a baby girl, Hudson Whitwell.

''Fletcher and Greg share the typical responsibilities and joys of parenting a young child: they feed, bathe, and clothe her; they teach her to walk and to recognize different shapes and colors; they play peek-a-boo with her and take her to visit her grandparents; they care for her when she’s sick; they read her bedtime stories and rock her to sleep at night,'' the suit says.

''Fletcher and Greg wish to marry for their daughter’s sake as well as for their own. Fletcher and Greg worry that, as Hudson grows older, she will be deprived of a sense of normalcy and may feel socially outcast because she will absorb the message she receives from her government that her parents are not worthy of marriage. They hope that, one day, Hudson can walk down the aisle at their wedding as their flower girl and that she will understand that the love and commitment her parents feel for one another — and for their family — is as great as that felt by other couples who currently may marry,’’ the suit says.

Sorry, but I just don't see how the present situation, even with SB 283 now in place, can be described as "equal protection under the law". The fact of the matter is that it's not. And that is why, once and for all, we will see Question 2 marriage discrimination taken to court.

John Lee Speaks... To Stonewall (And Gets a Surprising Response!)

We were all waiting for this. This was the big night. For the first time ever, John Lee appeared at a Nevada Stonewall Democratic function.





Yes, I can wait a moment while you try to put your head back together after it exploded.

OK, are you ready now?

So John Lee spoke at length on Nevada's legislative process, and of the state of our economy today (which I'll get to in a future story). But this morning, I want to give Lee a chance to explain for himself his past opposition to SB 283 and AB 211.



Honestly, I was surprised. He neither apologized for his votes nor tried to really rationalize them. He basically just said that they are what they are and he is what he is.





John Lee said flat out that he believes marriage should be restricted to straight couples, but I just asked him about SB 283, which is not even marriage. It just affords some basic rights, benefits, and responsibilities to Nevada families that are easily given to everyone else. I understand John Lee is "pro-family", so why not at least allow these families to have the same rights that he and his wife gave?



An actual constituent of John Lee then asked him about his vote last session against AB 211, the transgender inclusive workplace non-discrimination bill. Lee had said earlier that no one from Stonewall even bothered to talk to him, but she corrected him and stated she did schedule meetings with him in 2009 regarding SB 283, and in 2011 regarding AB 211. Now I realize that it was a mistake for many progressives to totally shut down lines of communication with Lee, however not everyone was doing that. And despite hearing from constituents and activists who did schedule meetings with him, Lee still voted against AB 211. Did he need to see this?



Or does he need to hear from more Nevadans who have experienced workplace discrimination first hand? How hard is it to understand that it's wrong to fire someone from a job just because of one's identified gender?

Well, at least John Lee came to Stonewall last night to hear our grievances. I'll give him credit for that. (No really, I will!) And hopefully now with lines of communication between Lee and local progressives, he'll take some time to reconsider his take on matters of LGBTQ equality.



Interestingly enough, another candidate stood up later in the meeting and briefly discussed his own first hand experience.



Steve Parke is running for Assembly District 21 in Henderson and Silverado Ranch. (Disclaimer: He's also my neighbor.) And like John Lee, Steve Parke is also "pro-family" (he has a wife and two kids) and LDS. And he explained so well both the legal and moral case for marriage equality. In just his one minute of speaking, he blew away the audience... And hopefully, helped Lee start on that path of reconsidering his take on matters of LGBTQ equality.

Between Lee coming to Stonewall and the introduction of new Legislature candidates there last night, my hope for next session is being renewed.

It's Time for Nevada's Mayors to Do the Right Thing

Recently, a huge, pan-partisan national coalition of mayors (of cities both big and small!) from all over the country joined with Freedom to Marry to launch Mayors for the Freedom to Marry and demand the end of marriage discrimination at all levels of government. But take a closer look at that list, and one notices a glaring omission. For some reason, no Mayor of any Nevada city is on this list.

Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus Chair Derek Washington penned an op-ed for QVegas over the weekend to specifically ask why the Mayor of Nevada's most famous and most populous city has so far refused to join the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry coalition. Considering the huge potential for increased tourism (and economic benefit) for Southern Nevada, why won't Carolyn Goodman even talk about this?

What makes this even weirder is that this shouldn't really be a "controversial" issue any more. Both of Carolyn Goodman's most recent predecessors as Las Vegas Mayor, Jan Laverty Jones (D) and Oscar Goodman (I) (who, by the way, is also Carolyn's husband), endorsed civil marriage equality during their respective tenures as Mayor. And statewide, Public Policy Polling found last August that a growing plurality of Nevadans support marriage equality. I'm sure support is even higher in the City of Las Vegas, so I'm quite perplexed that Carolyn Goodman still won't endorse civil marriage equality.

As we (and The Reno Gazette-Journal) have talked about before, domestic partnerships are better than nothing... But they are still no substitute for the real deal. There are over 1,100 federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities given to married couples that LGBTQ families can not access. In addition, there are still many aspects of Nevada law where LGBQT families must still be subjected to unequal treatment because of the Question 2 state marriage ban. Question 2 continues to harm local families who just want the same treatment everyone else expects, and it continues to harm efforts to bring in more domestic and international tourists because discrimination just doesn't fit in with the message of "freedom" we use when marketing to them.

Again, this really shouldn't be "controversial" any more. Supporting civil marriage equality is simply a good business decision for Nevada. And regardless of whether or not Carolyn Goodman finally realizes this, her inaction should not stop Nevada's other big city mayors from taking action. Andy Hafen (D-Henderson), Shari Buck (R-North Las Vegas), Bob Cashell (R-Reno), and Geno Martini (R-Sparks), we're all waiting for you to fill this void and fill it soon. If we really want to treat all our citizens equally and discover new business opportunities for our communities, we need to fix this error and make civil marriage equality a reality here in Nevada. And we need for our local mayors to seize this opportunity to speak up and make it happen.

10 of 11: #Equality

Not so long ago, LGBTQ equality seemed a distant dream. Hell, much of the community was excluded not that long ago as even many community leaders would only talk of "gay rights". But over the course of the last decade, this would change in a radical way. And in 2011 here in Nevada, we saw some big changes.

The year started with some uncertainty as pro-equality bills like AB 211 were being overshadowed by the bigger budget brawl. In March, the vote counting was still very much underway in Carson City. But in May, we saw a breakthough when AB 211 finally passed the Legislature and Brian Sandoval agreed to sign it into law. Never before in Carson could any transgender rights bill even reach the Assembly or Senate floor. But now, transgender Nevadans can finally work without fear of easy firing because of who they are. We also saw bills addressing housing discrimination, school bullying, public accommodations, and kids in foster care become law to the benefit of the entire community.

It seems like in the course of just three years, Nevada has made a great leap forward in treating its LGBTQ residents as full human beings. However, we still saw reminders this year that we've not reached full equality just yet. While the LVCVA took the long awaited step of marketing more to LGBTQ tourists, many of the powers that be in this state still can't admit that issues like marriage discrimination hold us back. And in October, the RGJ actually published a smart and insightful story on the hardships local LGBTQ families still face in this state.

[Joe] Edson said that, as a couple, [he and registered domestic partner Mike Hardie] have "jumped through all the legal hoops backwards" to get many of the same rights and protections that come to opposite-sex couples. That includes legal powers of attorney for health issues and revocable trusts. Edson said he had to be treated for colon cancer in 2004 and that helped propel the decision to get family rights.

"Any drunk heterosexual couple can wander into an Elvis chapel in Las Vegas and get all of these rights automatically," Edson said. "We have the education and the financial wherewithal to get those kinds of rights documented. A lot of our friends do not."

While domestic partnerships certainly offer more legal protections, rights, and responsibilities than the great heap of nothing we had before 2009, they're still not marriage. But even with this, there's hope emerging. The Prop 8 case in California is still making its way through federal courts. And if Judge Walker's overturning of the California marriage equality ban continues to stand, then it sets an encouraging federal precedent that will likely lead the way to the end of our own Question 2 marriage ban, as well as other discriminatory marriage bans across the country.



And speaking of federal matters, another encouraging development was the end of DADT. Last year, our own Harry Reid helped lay the foundation for its ultimate demise. And this year, homophobia fueled discrimination in America's armed forces finally landed where it belongs, in the dustbin of history. It's just too bad that the G-O-TEA still refuses to enter the 21st century.

Wow. Has the Republican Party really sunk that low? Apparently so. Remember, a bunch of Florida Republicans attending last night's debate in Orlando booed an active duty soldier, and did so simply because he's gay and he wanted to ask the Republican Presidential Candidates about reviving DADT.

And you know what makes this even more disgusting? Only two Republican candidates (neither of them with any real chance of getting the nomination), Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, rose to defend Stephen Hill and the end of DADT. Apparently, the rest of the GOP "clown car candidates" think discrimination is fabulous.

What really makes this appalling is that the Florida Republican audience at that debate last night showed complete and utter disrespect for an active duty soldier. They essentially booed our military and showed contempt for our country. Think about it. For as long as I can remember, the Republican Party has tried to position itself as "the patriotic party", the party that believes in the sanctity of the flag and everything it represents. Yet last night, we didn't see that party. Rather, we saw the continuation of a trend in the unveiling of a "new Republican Party" that's been hijacked by "TEA Party" extremists who care more about radical ideology than even the well being of our military and our very national security.

And therein lies our continuing challenge. But hopefully one day soon, we shall finally overcome bigotry's last stand and achieve full equality.

BREAKING: Las Vegas Enters 21st Century, Markets to LGBTQ Tourists

I have been wondering for some time when the Las Vegas gaming/tourism powers that be would wake up and smell the lavender. I guess they're finally getting there.

Print ads, websites and YouTube spots tout the offerings of Wynn Las Vegas, Paris, Luxor, Mandalay Bay and several other Strip operators that have steadily increased their efforts to lure dollars that reflexively went to the traditionally open-minded resort destinations of Palm Springs, Key West, Miami Beach and Provincetown. The LVCVA produces suggestive ads—two women with shapely legs playing footsie, a pair of fit young men holding hands on a golf course as Wynn Las Vegas looms in the background. They’re alluring images at the start of what Wynn Las Vegas marketer Michael Weaver dubs the “post-gay consumer marketing world,” a period when ad agencies seek to reach individual customers with the promise of luxury, entertainment, good food and sensuality—a classic quartet of offerings on the modern-day Strip.

Las Vegas consistently ranks among the top business and leisure destinations for the 4,296 LGBT travelers surveyed by Community Marketing. New York, San Francisco and Las Vegas typically hold the top three spots, with lesbians between the ages of 18 and 54 choosing Las Vegas as their favorite getaway. Gay men widely preferred New York City and San Francisco. “Las Vegas is really show-driven and those shows have a very gay spin—Cher, Bette Midler, Cirque du Soleil, Elton John. It’s good for Las Vegas to bring them in,” says Community Marketing’s [David] Paisley.

“Las Vegas is its own animal. It’s true that Vegas doesn’t have its own gay neighborhood like other cities do,” Paisley says, “but from a tourism perspective, Las Vegas is about the Strip. Gays and lesbians are coming to Las Vegas for the same reason everyone is coming to Las Vegas.”

So LVCVA finally has a full LGBTQ travel site up, and other casinos and tourist attractions are catching up to what Caesars, Wynn, and MGM have been learning over the last decade.

Speaking as a gay person myself who follows what's happening on The Strip, I can tell you there's still far more work to be done to let queer folk feel comfortable enough to visit Las Vegas and visit more often. Even though I often walk blithely around my Henderson 'hood with an "I <3 Castro" or HRC t-shirt, many gay couples are still afraid to hold hands while walking Las Vegas Blvd. What's wrong with this picture? Unfortunately, part of the reason why many LGBTQ tourists still feel ambivalent about Vegas is because of the huge mistake Nevada embarked upon a decade ago when Question 2 passed and discrimination was written into the Nevada Constitution. And though we've now somewhat corrected the situation with domestic partnerships and long awaited progress on transgender civil rights, that's still far from full equality.

Another part of the problem is that until very recently, there was never really talk of a comprehensive plan to fully market Vegas as "THE gay travel destination". Even local business leaders recognize we have a problem. We are more than just nightclub revelers and kinky sex machines. We want to sleep, we want to eat, we want to shop, and we want to explore.

At least we're now seeing LVCVA make the effort. That's a big start, and we're now moving in the right direction. Now if we can only get rid of that pesky Question 2...

April Fools? Las Vegas' Mayoral Race Devolves to Silly Season (& My Last Minute Endorsement)

Face, meet palm...

Several of the leading candidates for Las Vegas mayor have come under fire this week for their surprising lack of knowledge about basic current events.

First, at a debate Wednesday night hosted by Si Se Puede, a Democratic Hispanic group, City Councilman Steve Ross was left speechless by a question asking whether he supports the DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for qualifying undocumented young people who were brought to this country as children.

"I don't know enough about that to answer one way or the other," Ross said.

The DREAM Act has dominated headlines for years and is of particular interest in Nevada because of its support and advocacy by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Las Vegas students have protested to advance the measure, and supporters and opponents have written dozens of editorials on the topic.

And if that wasn't bad enough, try to follow the (lack of) logic of Carolyn Goodman's stance on domestic partnerships and marriage equality as Steve Friess tried to get a coherent answer out of her this week.

A crystallized commentary on that for me is difficult because you know I am about the rights of the human being but I’m also about legal rights. I’m certainly accepting of anybody and anybody’s rights to determine for themselves their own lifestyle as long as it’s not causing problems for anybody else and it’s legal. One of the things I remember asking years ago of my uncle who is a very astute lawyer because I didn’t understand, I had many friends and I’ve had friends all my life who are gay. I said I don’t understand why a legal contract wuldn’t suffice to bind two people together. You and I would have a legal contract, same sex let’s say, and I would agree that everything that’s mine it’s 50-50. If I die you would get everything, split down the middle. All I would say is why a legal binding contract wouldn’t work for a couple.

To be fair, Goodman's campaign manager, Bradley Mayer, later texted Friess to clarify that she SUPPORTS SB 283 and would not favor any effort to repeal domestic partnerships. Still, I'm baffled as to why she couldn't just spit that out to Friess when she had a chance to.

And what's with none of these candidates (save for Chris Giunchigliani, clearly the ONLY serious and qualified candidate running!) knowing anything on The DREAM Act? Don't any of them remember anything from last year's campaign?



Or are Larry Brown and Steve Ross joining Victor Chaltiel in courting the Sharrontology vote?



Carolyn Goodman really needs to brush up on her facts if she's serious about being Las Vegas' next Mayor, and both Steve Ross and Larry Brown should be ashamed of themselves for stooping down to such base homophobia and xenophobia just to court the "Christian Taliban" teabaggers who will never vote for either of them anyway. It's embarrassing that Las Vegas' mayoral candidates are mostly rich with embarrassments, and it's frustrating that all the rest of us who live outside the city have to see our issues get eclipsed by media frenzy over "teh stupid, it hurts".



Apparently, Chris Giunchigliani is the only candidate willing to take this job seriously and do her homework. Oh, and it also helps that she's always been pro-equality and she doesn't change her answers just to pander to xenophobes.

Prop H8: Another California Story (That May Affect Nevada)

These past few weeks and months, there's been so much happening in Nevada that it was sometimes quite difficult for me to turn my eyes elsewhere to see what's happening "in the outside world". But now that I'm actually here in California this month, I figured now would be a good chance to discuss the wrap-up of the Prop H8 federal trial... Especially with closing arguments today.

Courage Campaign, Progress Now Nevada's sister organization in California, has been covering the Prop H8 trial like crazy. The above video is a "retold scene" directly from the trial transcript.

So why am I talking about California (again) today? Well, this doesn't just affect marriage equality in California. This will have an impact on LGBTQ equality throughout the nation. The verdict, along with the subsequent appellate court rulings, will set a precedent for federal challenges on other marriage bans, including Question 2 here in Nevada.

Think about it. If the courts uphold Prop H8 and consider discrimination "constitutional", we probably won't see any challenge of Question 2 any time soon. However if the courts decide to overturn Prop H8, even if it's a narrowly tailored ruling stating that the Yes on H8 campaign's target of LGBTQ families was unconstitutional, this opens the door for us to make a move on Question 2. And especially if Judge Walker issues a broad ruling specifically declaring the entire concept of banning marriage equality unconstitutional, then Question 2 also is immediately struck down along with all the other state marriage bans.

So why does all this marriage talk really matter? As I explained last year, domestic partnership (DP) is needed progress but it's still not marriage. There are still many state and federal benefits and responsibilities given to married couples but denied to registered domestic partners. DPs were needed to provide some type of legal recognition and equal treatment under the law, but they are not full equality and we shouldn't ultimately settle for less than full equality.

So this is why I'm keeping an eye on Prop H8. Hopefully, we'll eventually see justice come from the courts. And regardless of what happens in the courts for the next few months, we need to keep organizing and keep winning hearts and minds until we build majority support for full state and federal equality.

Best of 2009 #7: "SB 283: What We Have & What We're Still Being Denied"

Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".



OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality.

But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.

....

(Also at the Stonewall Blog)

As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does)

First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality.

Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses. Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.

Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development.

And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.

I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.

David Parks for County Commission? The R-J Says It's Happening.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

State Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, said today he is taking a run at the Clark County Commission seat that Rory Reid is vacating.

Parks, 65, said he hopes to use his four decades of government experience to tackle the county’s pressing budget problems.


Parks is the third to declare candidacy for the District G seat. Former Clark County School Board member Mary Beth Scow and Greg Esposito, a planning commissioner, entered the race last month.

Reid is running for governor.

This has been the rumor going around town for some time, so it isn't really shocking. I just wonder why he'd give up his gig in Carson City just when he was getting started. After all, doesn't it still feel like SB 283 happened just yesterday?

Still, I'm sure he knows how to get Clark County moving again... So maybe we need someone as effective as he on the Commission? I guess we'll see.

Victory in Washington (So Far) & Hope for Nevada

Well, at least not all the news from last night was bad. Washington looks to be expanding domestic partner rights. If this holds up (and so far the returns and the locations of the remaining uncounted ballots are pointing this way), Washington will be the very first state to approve of relationship recognition rights by popular vote.

In Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.

Gay rights supporters were not ready to declare victory Tuesday night.

"We are hopeful, but we are not stupid. We know better than to think we've got this in the can," said said Jody Lane of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They may be recounting 'til January, for God's sake."

Before the first batch of results came in at 8:15 p.m., supporters laughed as a clip of Stephen Colbert jokingly endorsing Washington's domestic partnership law played on a projector at the Pravda Studios party.

With a bigger crowd by 9:05 p.m., they were still having fun -- but no one was celebrating. "We are really very guardedly optimistic, remembering that a very very large percentage of King County ballots have not been counted," campaign manager Josh Friedes told the crowd.

So far, so good. Washington is on the right path... And here's why it's so important and why we should care about it.

First, the opposition made this about "gay marriage" even though people were actually voting on DPs. They called themselves "Protect Marriage Washington" and warned about how approving R-71 would "put Washington on the path to let teh gayz merry!" Ironically, this proxy war over marriage equality will encourage pro-equality activists to one day go for full civil marriage equality in Washington.

Secondly if the anti-equality forces couldn't muster an off-year election in Washington, what makes them think they can pull a win in Nevada next year with Harry Reid, Rory Reid, and a number of other high-profile races on the ballot? Nevada Democrats have now proven to have a superior turn-out machine than the Republicans, so I doubt voters in a regular general election will be in the appetite to hate on LGBT families just for the sake of hating on them.

And finally, this is truly historic. Again, R-71 in Washington is the first time EVER that voters in any state approved legal relationship recognition. And again, if they can't win in an off-year election like this it gives me hope that 2010 and 2012 won't be so scary for us after all.

And really, I need hope now. The Maine results still scare me. I guess they were just too religious right there... And Obama (again) was hurting us there. Whatever went wrong, hopefully one day it will be made right in Maine.

But at least today, Washington is making baby steps toward equality... And we can breathe a little more easily about Nevada coming along as well.

Washington: It's Crunch Time to Protect Domestic Partnerships!

Remember that other election happening next Tuesday? You know, the one in Washington? The one where domestic partnerships are up for a popular vote?

Yes, you heard me right. Domestic partnerships are now at risk in Washington. There's only one week left until Election Day, and the time is now to get working to protect Washington's LGBT families!





These are some of the ads now on the air in Washington thanks to our support. And fortunately, they're up just at the right time. The KING 5 poll shows Referendum 71 narrowly ahead 50-43, even though the University of Washington poll shows a stronger 56-39 lead for Approve 71. And even if the actual numbers are more like UW's, we can't just rest on those laurels in an unpredictable low turnout election. And especially if the numbers are more like KING's, then this may be a close election where every vote counts!

Think about it. For many thousands of senior couples and LGBT families, their basic rights and responsibilities are on the line. Their lives will be made far more difficult if R-71 is rejected and domestic partner rights are stripped away. All families deserve equal protection under the law, and Washington families will get something closer to equal protection if R-71 is approved.

Don't these families deserve protection?



Obviously, the anti-equality forces don't. Focus on the Family and NOM are now dumping money into Washington to deceive voters into rejecting R-71. They whine and scream over all of the usual objections to marriage equality... But in this case, it isn't even marriage equality!

Sound familiar? It should! Here in Nevada, our very own "Luv Guv" Gibbons used these same tired and blatantly false "arguments" to try to block final passage of SB 283, Nevada's domestic partnership law. Fortunately he didn't succeed this year, but perpetual homophobe campaigner Richard Ziser is already planning to try again next year. Believe me, what happens in Washington this year will have a profound impact on what happens in Nevada next year and in other states considering similar DP/civil union legislation.

This is why I must ask you one more time to remember all the families in Washington at risk. Please donate what you can to approve R-71 and/or volunteer to call for equality. Our action will really make the difference.

These are the last days for Washingtonians to mail in their ballots. Again, turnout will be critical in determining the fate of domestic partnerships. Let's get R-71 approved in Washington so that families there are protected and all of us in Nevada and elsewhere need not worry about any more radical religious right attacks on our families.

Maine (& Nevada): Why Marriage Matters

OK, so the Yes on H8/Yes on 1 anti-equality forces are now saying they "don't oppose civil rights". Uh-huh. So they just want "equality by another name"?

Not really. After all, why did these same religious right forces fight SB 283 here in Nevada that isn't even marriage?



And by the way, Maine Domestic Partnerships are not even comprehensive like ours in Nevada. They're very limited to only a few medical decisions and property rights. Is this type of third-class (since it isn't even second-class) citizenship what Yes on 1 calls "equality"?

OK, so let's assume some of these Yes on 1 folks are serious about "changing" Maine's domestic partnership law to look more like Nevada's. I did my homework on SB 283, the domestic partner law that's now being practiced here in The Silver State. I did my homework and I know what's in the bill and what isn't. Let me give you the gist of SB 283.

[State Senator and SB 283 author] David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. [...]

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.

When it comes to federal law, marriage is marriage is marriage. And even if DOMA is repealed soon and same-sex marriages will be recognized by the federal government, comprehensive DPs and civil unions will still not be recognized by the feds and treated as "marriages". So all of us in Nevada will still be left in the cold and so will Mainers if Question 1 passes.

And even worse, comprehensive DPs and civil unions are not even treated equally when it comes to state law. That was the experience in Vermont until marriage equality was legalized there. That's what New Jersey is dealing with in regards to their civil unions. That's what California, Oregon, and Nevada are now facing with DPs. No matter how well intentioned the "separate but equal laws" are, separate is simply never equal.

Marriage equality is important because it gives LGBT families the same equal rights and responsibilities under the law as straight families. And even more so, civil marriage equality gives our families the same respect and dignity they deserve.

And again, I doubt the anti-equality folks will even allow DPs. After all, Richard Ziser is attacking us here in Nevada once again. DPs are under attack in Washington state this year. This is just another excuse for the anti-equality religious right to make LGBT families in Maine and elsewhere suffer. Don't believe them.

R-71 This Year... And SB 283 Next Year?

Remember when I warned you last week that serial anti-equality campaigner Richard Ziser is threatening Nevada LGBT families again, this time considering a ballot initiative to strip away our hard fought domestic partner rights won with SB 283? Well, the threat is real. We now know.

However, there's a way we can stop it before it really starts. We can help our friends and family in Washington state Approve Referendum 71 so that we send a message to the forces of bigotry out West that we won't allow any more of their H8!

Equal Rights Washington recently released this video explaining the importance of domestic partnerships.



A similar video can easily be made here in Nevada regarding our families and the unnecessary burdens they've had to carry until just last week. Yes, yes, I already know that they're not marriage and that we still have work to do to win full equality for our families and our community. But that's just it... We need to move FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD!

Just like us in Nevada, LGBT families in Washington also won comprehensive domestic partnerships this year. They were also supposed to start seeing all the new rights and responsibilities in place this fall, just like Nevada. However, R-71 qualified for the ballot and LGBT families there are now under attack.

This is why we need to help R-71 win approval. If "liberal Washington" voters reject domestic partnerships, think of how this would embolden Richard Ziser and his bigoted allies in starting yet another campaign to strip many thousands of Nevada families of their fundamental civil rights. Think of how it would pose a challenge to repeal the Prop H8 marriage ban in California next year. Think of how it would threaten the limited domestic partner benefits just passed in Colorado this year. Think of how it could hurt efforts to expand legal protections for LGBT families in Arizona and New Mexico.

Make no doubt about it. What happens in Washington will very much happen throughout The West. That's why we need to ensure that R-71 is approved!

If R-71 is approved, Washington LGBT families and seniors will finally have the legal protections they deserve. And Nevada LGBT families and unmarried couples need not worry about losing theirs. And California equality activists can get back to repealing Prop H8. And we can see more progress happen in more Western states.

Aren't you sick and tired of losing these elections and seeing our community constantly being bloodied up and kicked to the ground? I am, and I don't want this to ever happen again! I lived through Prop H8 in California last year, so I'd rather not see a repeat of that pain and suffering for my friends and family here in Nevada. We need to move the ball forward on LGBT equality in The West, so let's start doing that by stopping the radical right in Washington!

Sure, the opposition's ads are lame. However, we can't underestimate their power. This is an off-year election, so they're counting on this and a horrfyingly radical right anti-environment, anti-education, anti-social safety net initiative to turn out the homophobic teabagger base. We can't afford to sit idly by and do nothing. No, we need to make sure progressive voters turn out to Approve R-71!

Again, think of the families in Las Vegas, Reno, Elko, Pahrump, and all throughout Nevada who now depend on SB 283 for basic legal protection. Let's not put them in danger. Approve 71 in Washington now to stop any more attacks in The West.

SB 283: Richard Ziser Rears His Ugly, Bigoted Head... AGAIN!

Buried in today's R-J story of SB 283 becoming law today is Richard Ziser whining, moaning, screaming, and complaining that LGBT families are given ANY legal protection in this state.

Richard Ziser, who led the drive in Nevada to define marriage in the state constitution as being between a man and a woman, said no decision has been made by his Coalition for Protection of Marriage organization to challenge the domestic partnership law.

Lawyers told him it would be easier to overturn the law through a public referendum rather by going to court. But public referendums require petition gathering, which is very costly, Ziser added.

Tod Story, a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center in Las Vegas, said passage of the domestic partnership law shows Nevada remains a "live and let live state."

He and his longtime partner will receive their domestic partnership certificate today.

"What same sex couples are trying to accomplish is equal rights," Story said. "We want to have the opportunity to have our relationships recognized by law and to be treated equally."

Ridiculous. Today should be a day of celebration in our community, but hateful people like Ziser always try to poop on our parade by threatening to roll back even the slightest of achievements for our community.

Give me a f*cking break! If Ziser really wants a rematch, I'm sure we're ready to beat him this time. In fact, I know we will.

It's just sad that just as LGBT families in Nevada start to receive something close to equal treatment under the law, the homophobic anti-equality extremists are always out to get us. Well, they won't succeed this time!

SB 283: Today's The Day

History and Herstory are being made today in Nevada. Finally, FINALLY, LGBT families won't be at so much of a disadvantage any longer. The state moves just a little closer toward full equality.

They’ve been together for more than nine years. Most of their time revolves around the kids: dropping off, picking up, going to games and recitals, meeting with teachers, reminding about chores and nursing colds. In the evenings, their family has dinner together and yet they still find time for just the two of them, to laugh and tease and flirt and say, “I love you.”

And today, Carline Banegas and Jodie Dearborn will be one of nearly 700 couples receiving Nevada’s first domestic partnership certificates.

In the eyes of the law, their family will be almost normal.

And fortunately, The Sun has also uploaded a video of the Banegas-Dearborn family and their thoughts on SB 283 becoming law.



I must admit that their story from "Equality Days" really put a smile on my face.

Last spring Nevada’s Legislature debated a bill introduced by state Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas. It wouldn’t overturn Nevada’s ban and make us one of the four states with same-sex marriage. It wouldn’t provide federal recognition for same-sex couples. But it would make Nevada the 10th state with either domestic partnerships or civil unions. It would be a legal piece of paper for couples to show doctors and bosses.

Carline and Jodie consider themselves active in the gay community, but they don’t think of themselves as activists. As Carline says, “I’m a lesbian but that’s not the only hat I wear. I’m a mom, I’m active at my kids’ school.”

They also were among the couples who traveled to Carson City in April to lobby legislators to pass the bill.

With some apprehension, they knocked on a lot of doors. Carline went into the office of Ed Goedhart, a staunch anti-tax Republican assemblyman from Amargosa. He was wearing a cowboy hat.

Carline remembers, “I went in there with my attitude, like, ‘We’ve been together almost 10 years and I’m no different than you are.’ And he’s like, ‘I know, you’re right.’

“He totally made me feel like a fool.”

A month later, after Gov. Jim Gibbons vetoed domestic partnerships, Goedhart was the only Republican in the Assembly who voted to override the veto. His was the decisive 28th vote, providing a needed two-thirds majority in the lower chamber.

Maybe if even such conservative Republicans as Goedhart can ultimately do the right thing, maybe there's continued hope for us. Hopefully as the "weddings" start today, we'll see positive coverage of families living their dreams and not so much media hype of "freak shows".

And hopefully today is just the start of real progress for our LGBT community in Nevada as our families finally start to get some of the respect they deserve.

One Week Away from Progress

Today's the deadline. When today ends, pre-registration ends. And from there, it's the final week until SB 283 becomes law.

Nevada is moving forward, and here's what to expect in only one week.

A while back, I wrote about what the new domestic partner law means for LGBT families (and unmarried straight couples) in Nevada. And yes, there are plenty of positive changes on the way. Adoption will be made easier. Family medical decisions will be made easier. State tax benefits and community property laws will now apply to domestic partners.

Simply put, our lives and our legal paperwork will be made much easier thanks to the new domestic partnership law. So why am I not totally jubilant about this? I actually am happy to see progress, but I know this still isn't full equality.

For one, there's only an "opt-in" policy for employers to provide health insurance benefits to domestic partners. They're allowed, but not required. So while those fortunate enough to work for private companies like Wells Fargo or government agencies like the City of Las Vegas that already provide benefits need not worry, for everyone else there's no guarantee that their employer will start providing benefits when SB 283 officially becomes law.

And of course, we have the feds and DOMA to deal with. Of course, the good news on the horizon is that the Respect for Marriage Act has been introduced in the House. However Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who coauthored the bill, has said that his bill does not address civil unions and domestic partnerships. So even if Nadler and friends are successful in repealing DOMA, Nevada's Domestic Partnerships still won't be eligible for any federal marriage benefits.

So what do we do? For now, we celebrate our progress. We make sure our allies are reelected next year so we can expand on this progress.

And in the mean time, we can also help the Approve R-71 campaign in Washington. Our neighbors way up to the north instituted similar comprehensive domestic partnerships, but they're now under attack from the radical right. The poll numbers for likely voters are close, so we need to help our friends up north turn out as many progressive allies as possible next month (when early voting starts) to preserve the domestic partnership law.

Hopefully one day in our lifetime, we'll see full civil marriage equality in Nevada and nationwide. We need to keep fighting for full equality on all levels for everyone in our community. But in the mean time, we can celebrate our progress so far and keep a watchful eye to make sure the far right doesn't set us backward as we keep making progress.